The Fantasy of a “Pro-American” Iraq

A decade ago, in the euphoric days that followed its liberation, Iraq was supposed to re-emerge as one of the United States’ staunchest regional allies [bold mine-DL]. That didn’t happen, partly thanks to President Obama’s decision to effectively sabotage plans to forge an agreement that would have linked Iraq to the United States in military and security domains.

There was never any realistic chance that Iraq would become one of America’s “staunchest regional allies.” No one but the most deluded war supporters ever believed this was possible. It made no sense that a post-Hussein Iraqi government would want any part of becoming a U.S. client. Having overthrown Hussein, the U.S. all but guaranteed that Iranian influence in the country would increase, and because of the deep unpopularity of the occupation it was inevitable that the U.S. would have to end its military presence sooner or later. Iraq was never going to become a reliable client of the U.S., and if there was any chance that this might happen it was destroyed by eight years of war and occupation.

The expectation that Iraq would become a “pro-American” state was just one of the many flawed assumptions that war supporters held, and they held them because they paid little or no attention to the reality of the country they were proposing to remake. The idea that this was still possible in 2011 is fanciful, and it’s even more so now. There appears to be no interest in the administration in cultivating this sort of relationship with Iraq, and it would be bizarre if there were.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 28 comments

28 Responses to The Fantasy of a “Pro-American” Iraq

If there is any lesson we should have learned from the Iraq War was it is awfully hard to win allies after you bombed the country to the stone age and killed nearly 500K people. No politician can fix that.

As I recall, Obama, after running on a promise to withdraw from Iraq altogether, attempted to hold out for a modest residual force and was rebuffed. Although I wanted a complete withdrawal, I was glad that he held out for the modest residual and was rebuffed. It gave us undisputed cover to withdraw entirely. The host government had made clear that it did not want us; any residual presence could only have been maintained as an occupying force against the host government’s wishes.

The difficulty with the hawks is that so many of them think and argue in terms of superficially plausible analogies. The response will be that more death and destruction was caused by the toppling of an evil dictator in WWII, yet we came out of the post-war occupation with two close allies who stood with us against communism. This worked because the American people were “committed” to seeing it through and willing to do what needed to be done, etc. This sort of analogy breaks down under the slightest analysis, but its purpose is to provide rhetorical cover. America is, after all, exceptional and we’ve shown in the past we can rebuild countries post-war so denying that we can do so in this instance is tantamount to denying our exceptionalism. It’s unpatriotic and unthinkable.

In the meantime, if we haven’t been able to make it work in Iraq, it can’t be because invasion and occupation was bad policy from the start. It must be because we haven’t the commitment of the WWII generation. And this can’t be because of the hawks, whose commitment is unquestionable, but must be credited to those who questioned the wisdom of the policy. Nothing can be learned from the invasion and occupation of Iraq because the thinking which produced the policy already includes an explanatory apparatus for the policy’s failure. If you point to the USSR as evidence for the failure of communism, a communist may reply that there was a lack of commitment to genuine communism. No objection may be raised against industrial capitalism which won’t result in some explanation involving an insufficient commitment to a genuinely free market. Likewise, no failing in Iraq can’t be accounted for with reference to inadequate commitment to war.

Taheri is a known confabulator, perhaps most famous for writing a fraudulent article claiming that Iranian Jews were going to be forced to wear identifying insignia similar to the yellow star in Nazi Germany. The fact that anyone deems him worthy of further publication is a sign of the degeneracy of our “conservative” media.

Henri: no, “it’s that Bush” AND “it’s that Obama” who perpetrated this unnecessary, non-defensive war and occupation of Iraq. Both men and their parties are responsible for the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqi people and by our soldiers, as well as for the hundreds of billions of dollars we have borrowed to fund the whole thing.

The really sleazy part is that Obama actually tried to change the withdrawal agreement in favor of continued US partial occupation.

“President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

“Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 [ie Bush Adminitration] security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year [2011], but the White House — anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges — publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.”

The agreement Bush signed, because it called for total US withdrawal, gave Maliki (the Iraqi leader) all the leverage he needed. Bush agreed that all US troops would leave in 2011. Obama, despite having campaigned against the war, wanted to keep thousands of US troops and dozens of US military bases in Iraq. But Maliki said no, unless you (Obama) agree to end US military personnel’s legal immunity. IF Obama had said yes to that, and, the first time a US soldier killed or wounded an Iraqi, charges were filed in an Iraqi court which a US soldier would have to answer, well, you can imagine what the neo cons would have said to that! US troops are not based anywhere where they don’t have some kind of immunity from local prosecution. Never mind a country like Iraq, brimming with resentments against the US forces. And Maliki knew that; he was the one who “sabotaged” the efforts to continue the “relationship,” by demanding a condition that Obama could not possibly agree to, not Obama, who was already doing an about face from his peacenik campaign stance. This way, Maliki could say, plausibly, “I did not kick them out, but I could not in good conscience let them stay and continue to have extraterritorial legal treatment,” and, the way the agreement with Bush was written, no new deal meant no deal at all. Obama had a deadline to deal with, not Maliki.

Now, in my book, Maliki did us a favor. And I am glad he “sabotaged” the talks. But for this clown to blame Obama for it? That is just the usual neo con mendacity in action.

Here’s an article detailing the fact that the immunity issue was the sticking point….

“But as the clock ticks on a troop withdrawal deadline that expires at the end of the year, the two sides so far have failed to reach an agreement on the make-or-break question of legal safeguards, said the [US] official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“’If there are no legal protections then our ability to support will be extremely limited. So that’s a major sticking point right now,’ the official said.”

Recall that when that mob of Shia Militia were taking Saddam to the gallows, he chastized them for not behaving in a dignified manner, the way a Muslim man should behave (in his estimation).

Saddam also referred to Iraqi Shia as “Persians” — he knew damn well, even if Cheney and Bush the Lesser didn’t, that the Shia in his country would be best buds with the Iranians ten seconds after the Sunnis were removed from power in Iraq.

“Saddam also referred to Iraqi Shia as “Persians” — he knew damn well, even if Cheney and Bush the Lesser didn’t, that the Shia in his country would be best buds with the Iranians ten seconds after the Sunnis were removed from power in Iraq.”

That this will be muted, but I think it lauds big trouble for the future. We should never have permitted those trials to go forward.

If I recall correctly, shortly after we set up “our” government, the then foreign minister–can’t remember his name at this point–was dispatched to Israel–certainly at our instigation–because the neocons had insisted that with Saddam out of the way it Iraq would become, not just our partner, but would befriend Israel as well. Of course, as soon as he returned from that little adventure the outcry against him was so intense he had to resign. Amidst all the other predictions gone wrong, this one sometimes disappears, but it also points to the real motives of the neocons, and their complete inability to face the actual facts on the ground.

Surely Iraq is one of the worst US foreign policy debacles in history. I’m still trying to put my mind around the enormity of the disaster but I get dizzy doing so. As they said in another age, another world, it’s totally FUBAR.

I don’t think any Iraqi FM, even one from “our” government, ever visited Israel. What did happen was that PM Allawi shook hands with the Israeli FM at the UN (they sat next to each other, as the seats are in alphabetical order!), and that generated some controversy. Another Iraqi, Mithal Al Alusi, twice visited Israel. First in 2004 when he was a private citizen and later when he was an MP in 2008. Both times there was public controversy and official efforts to bring criminal charges against him, but both times the Iraqi courts quashed the efforts.

Taheri seems to believe that Iranians have as short a memory of their own history as Americans have of Iranian history.

Americans in the South haven’t forgotten the Civil War…Iranians are not likely to forget that we overthrew their government and installed a puppet, that we supported their enemies during the Iran/Iraq war, and that we’ve steadfastly backed “moderate” Saudi Arabia to contain Iran.

Since 1979 America has been sold a narrative of “crazy Shiites” and “conservative Sunnis” that explained “The Arab Middle East” to us. It’s a false narrative, but it’s been handy for some people to draw us into conflicts that are anything but simple.

We get sold a concept of “the Arab World” that stretches from Libya to Iraq and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. This is, in fact at least four different historical regions: Egypt, Arabia, Assyria and Persia, and the most recent Empire to occupy all of it were Ottomans (that is, Turks), not “Arabs.”

Today we see Persians and Arabs waging a proxy war in Assyria. We see it in Iraq, we see it in Syria.

Both sides in that proxy war are rightfully wary of the United States, with the Saudis declaring that they’re no longer going to cooperate with us…as if…

Iran is not going to become our bosom buddy. At best they’ll thaw from super-cold to merely frozen.

The whole idea that removing Saddam and replacing him with exiles who had spent years living in Iran was going to create a state that was (a) friendly to Israel and (b) unfriendly to Iran, was delusional. And that’s the kindest word for it.

Richard Perle might be called the “prince of darkness” but I always though it was significant that Benador was linked in to all of them, although few seemed to care, and no one picked up my nickname for her, “the booking agent for darkness.”

very pertinent comments and I would add that the immunity issue is one where Iraqis would have taken their cues from what happened in Iran during the 60s – which Iranians certainly remember. One of the reasons Khomeini was exiled was his criticism of US military immunity, going straight to his people and declaring “an American can kill your religious leader in the bazaar and the Iranian police are not allowed to arrest him!”

Realistically the Bush plan was – Destabilize the entire Middle East. Then rebuild it as this fantasy of a free market paradise Republicans believe is government at it’s finest.

Only the first part worked. These men are not fools or idiots. They are ideologues, no different than the Tea Party – leaders and followers. Nothing is ever their fault. They never fail, they are only betrayed by the powerful and denied by the weak.

It’s really pretty amazing.

“…a vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you’re attempting can’t be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history.”

The expectation that Iraq would become a “pro-American” state was just one of the many flawed assumptions that war supporters held, and they held them because they paid little or no attention to the reality of the country they were proposing to remake.

They also have never been to any regional bazaar and have no concept of the “sweet tongue”. In fact, some travel writers (I would say of liberal urban variety) went as far as to suggest that traders there do haggling for the sake of haggling. What a maroons! With some exceptions (and there are some) haggling there, including open flattery towards, lying, exaggeration, cheating of the customer is done for the ultimate sake of furthering the own interest and agenda. Certain chap named Chalabi comes to mind. If western politicians fall for such second rate performances, which are not even a secret for anyone with even rudimentary experience of the region’s customs. Well, too bad. The only thing which makes me sad is the blood of innocent, including American servicemen who fought for some chimera. Taheri is archetypal in this respect.

In agreement with Jake Lukas, and adding: Washington learned exactly the wrong lesson from the German and Japanese experience in WWII. Washington learned, incorrectly, that you can invade and occupy a country and they will become your lasting friends. What they should have learned is that if you engage in constant aggressive criminal warfare you stand in danger of undermining your legitimacy to the extent of losing your sovereignty if an unexpected counter-power arises.

”Cheney grew grim and laid out the worst case scenario. “Dick, how would you feel if you voted no on this and the Iraqis brought in a bomb and blew up half the people of San Francisco?” Armey was suitably scared but still dubious. “You’re going to get mired down there,” he predicted. No, Cheney said. “It’ll be like the American troops going through Paris.”

Bush was rebuffed by Al Maliki even after Maliki’s family was harassed by US forces. Spinmeisters like Charles Krauthammer have omitted that pesky detail to blame Obama, but the reality is that Iraqi leaders were itching to settle scores, so once the US was gone, the fun began. And during the occupation, the US wanted to apprehend Maqtada D’Sadr whose role as a radical cleric/Iran stooge was causing trouble, but the British pleaded with the US not to since they feared for the safety of their forces. (Saw that on the BBC, and was amazed at how pathetic the British had become.) The whole exercise should be a cautionary tale, but our demented class of foreign policy fetishists can’t let go.